Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

When I look at the topic title, I was thinking about the real life piracy happening in places like the Gulf of Aden, and the French fleet actually did nothing much around there.

I am a person who believe that information is free, but you pay the price for something that you like (which is the reason why I am willing to spend over $200 for the Key 10th Memorial Album and $100+ RA3 LE). Driving them down under is not the way to go, because it might cause a surge in internet terrorism in the future.

The revolution of getting music distributors to regulate costs, improve their quality of work (just how many trash tracks have you listened to recently?) and help improve availability of popular media is being suppressed. What a pity.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I give you the modern version of the whale oil lamp industry - when confronted with electricity, instead of innovating or buying into the new technology, they lobbied for (and sometimes got) laws declaring electricity and electric lighting to be too dangerous for home use.

I am one of the french that are not entirely against the Hadopi bill. I will not talk about the other solutions that the people against Hadopi raise, but even so, those solutions are so far, not perfect either.

Hadopi is nowhere near perfect because it raises two big problems among some other minor problems:

- Is it applicable? Not easily.
- It causes a major democracy problem because every person who is accused of downloading an illegal file is considered guilty and, if he/she didn't do what he/she is accused for (it could happen.), has to give evidence of his innocence (and I guess it's not easy, if not impossible to do that). That is wrong. In our democracy, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

But, it's not because a possible majority of internet french users download illegal stuffs that we can ignore the fact that it is illegal (don't point finger at me, I am talking about the laws and how some men of laws think. So don't attack me with a "and you what do you do on internet", that's not the point). Is it a good example to say "well, a majority of people disregard a law, so it's not illegal anymore!" ? I think Not. That's the speech of many other people on different topics like the use of marijuana here in France. But it's not because a large part of a population do something that it has to be obviously considered good and that we have to forgive the people who disregard a law. In that case, a major law, the one against every types of Frauds.

Hadopi is not good because it's unapplicable and is dangerous for the rights of the people (as I said, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and that should not change). But,a good part of those who are against this law like to claim this, but refuse to see that they are at fault. Disregarding a law is something, but then raising some other laws and rights to explain how much a law is not good is hypocritical.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. And a person is at fault when she/he disregards a law. That's simple. You can't raise the former point while hiding the latter as if you didn't do anything wrong. If something like Hadopi came out of the water, it's because of a lot of people who are at fault. That should not be forgotten.

I give you the modern version of the whale oil lamp industry - when confronted with electricity, instead of innovating or buying into the new technology, they lobbied for (and sometimes got) laws declaring electricity and electric lighting to be too dangerous for home use.

You sir wins with that comparison. It seems it's a french thing to cling on what worked in the past and catch the train of progress very late. Case in point: the role of airplanes in modern warfare. And we know what happened in 1940.

"The law is ineffective, inapplicable and dangerous," said Mr Jeremie Zimmerman, who heads a Paris-based Internet freedom activist group.

I agree with this guy. I don't really care about those punished since I'm not French and this won't affect me at all, but seriously, how does legislature expect this to be enforced? I seriously doubt they have the manpower to actually track down every single perpetrator (cuz if France is anything like the rest of the world, they should have their fair share of software/etc pirates) and cut off their internet access. Just a thought.

But, Narona, if the Law contradicts the People, which should stand? If the law unjustly punishes many, many people -- is it the people's fault or is the law?

And if the Law is written by people with vested interests and lack of expertise, are we supposed to trust the law at all?

I hope the EU completely squashes it. Yes, we'll hear more about the British and the French and other politicians complaining about "EU interference in national sovereignty," but quite frankly this kind if thing is exactly what those pretty-sounding commissions are for.

By the by, I'm thoroughly offended that there have yet to be any barricades in Paris over this. Whatever happened to you French?

But, Narona, if the Law contradicts the People, which should stand? If the law unjustly punishes many, many people -- is it the people's fault or is the law?

And if the Law is written by people with vested interests and lack of expertise, are we supposed to trust the law at all?

Going against Hadopi is normal in a way, because of the two points i raised above.

But, blatantly denying (what a lot of people do here) that a lot of people disregard the Law about Frauds is not normal. Denying that Hadopi was created "partly" because of people bad behavior is hypocritical. Some french are just mere cowards and don't even want to admit that.

If you run a store, will you agree that everyone could take your apples without paying for it? That's the same. It's not about high prices and such. Yes prices of CDs, DVDs are high, but it's not illegal. Using that as an excuse to say "we have the right to rob it without being lectured" is just plainly wrong. And you see hypocritical people everywhere here in France.

But, blatantly denying (what a lot of people do here) that a lot of people disregard the Law about Frauds is not normal. Denying that Hadopi was created "partly" because of people bad behavior is hypocritical. Some french are just mere cowards and don't even want to admit that.

She is right. Google "French military victories" and click I Am Feeling Lucky. *sarcastic*

But back to the topic.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narona

If you run a store, will you agree that everyone could take your apples without paying for it? That's the same. It's not about high prices and such. Yes prices of CDs, DVDs are high, but it's not illegal. Using that as an excuse to say "we have the right to rob it without being lectured" is just plainly wrong. And you see hypocritical people everywhere here in France.

There is a point in your statement, but you must draw a line between freeloaders and samplers. There are some people who take one or two apples just for the taste (usually they take two, one to taste, the other to throw at the farmer if the taste sucks), and there are those who take half a harvest's worth. The people we are marginalising are those script-kiddy types who refuse to give anything, yet want to take all they want.

IMO, rules are made to be circumvented and broken. The Scene is more resilient than what any individual government thinks.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

The Bill would create a government agency to sanction offenders, leaving monitoring efforts to entertainment industry watchdogs.

Actually, it's that line above that made me raise an eyebrow. I didn't realise Sarkozy is so cosy with music- and film-makers.

And, while I generally agree with some of Narona's points — stealing is stealing no matter how you try to rationalise it — I believe that the Bill is going in the wrong direction. As others have mentioned, the old business model of selling content on physical media is fading fast — every part of the media industry, from music to newspapers, books and now film, is suffering from this trend. What the industry needs is a better way to sell content, profitably, in a time of digital proliferation online. Legislation of this kind protects a system that's already rapidly breaking down. At best, it'll only delay the inevitable for the music, film and print industries.

There is a point in your statement, but you must draw a line between freeloaders and samplers. There are some people who take one or two apples just for the taste (usually they take two, one to taste, the other to throw at the farmer if the taste sucks)

That's why, even if the laws exist, a lot of them are flexible. But what people should understand is that even if you will not be put in jail for that, it's not normalto disregard a law. Forgiving people has only a meaning if the one who's at fault understand that he/she did something wrong.

Internet just shows a part of the bad side of a certain number of humans. "if it's easy to take without paying and without being arrested, then let's do it".

Quote:

, and there are those who take half a harvest's worth. The people we are marginalising are those script-kiddy types who refuse to give anything, yet want to take all they want.

The problem is that monitoring what people do on Internet is hard when we're talking about millions of people. That's why hadopi is unapplicable.

Besides that, to arrest the ones who download TONS of stuffs, you need something to monitor what each people do on internet (and to monitor each file transfer, which is laughable) ; but the people are against that. Some because they are at fault, but also because it's not right to monitor the personal life of the people. Will you agree to have a big camera in your bedroom with someone from the government/police who is looking at you all the time? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

As others have mentioned, the old business model of selling content on physical media is fading fast — every part of the media industry, from music to newspapers, books and now film, is suffering from this trend. What the industry needs is a better way to sell content, profitably, in a time of digital proliferation online. Legislation of this kind protects a system that's already rapidly breaking down. At best, it'll only delay the inevitable for the music, film and print industries.

Yes. But what is irritating is that some people use this and the high prices as an excuse for their bad behaviors. Let's be honest. I've yet to see french saying "We are downloading stuff because it's easy or because we don't need to pay for it or sometimes because it's unavailable in our country" and because of that, the Business model has to change, thats true. But as i said, the government will not put in jail millions of people, so no need to raise up bad excuses to hide that we currently spit on a law.

If you run a store, will you agree that everyone could take your apples without paying for it? That's the same. It's not about high prices and such.

Then shall we imprison our apple thief -- surely a pitiless criminal scum -- for twenty five years for his crimes?

Jean Valjean objects, sir!

And if you think the analogy is horrendous, then let me point out the classic flaw in your analogy: apples don't work like TV shows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narona

it's not normal to disregard a law

Actually...

The act of disregarding laws has existed as long as laws have existed. And laws don't earn their legitimacy -- in my eyes at least -- from just being laws. They earn them by making sense. The merchants of Buenos Aires didn't appreciate it when Spain demanded that all trade must go through Lima so they can tax it all. Smuggling flourished. Law. The colonials screamed bloody murder with them British Stamp Acts. They ended up pulling a freaking revolution over such issues. Law. RIAA suing American grandmothers to death for the evil, evil crime of owning a few illegal songs. (Almost) law.

I'm sorry, but I'm not just a Lawful kind of guy. You have to argue more than just "it's the law" or blanket "stealing is wrong" to convince me. I see too many shades of gray as it is.

Ok I will said one thing about this law : It's a big joke (but not funny at all ). I really hate my governement for all this law, reform that they want to impose to other poeple. Hadopi is extremly dangerous because it's based on IP wich mean that even if it's not you who download something but an other person who use your IP then you will be convict !

I think we need to be honest here, this law profit only to majors and big artist but not minor artist and all. There is many many more minor artist than big artist and these minor artist are against this law !

People need to understand that CD, DVD and all are pratically dead ! Hadopy is not a good answer against this problem. It's just an answer totally outdated !

There is many other solution about that, one of them is the global licence. What's global licence ? Global licence consist to add some Euro to your internet subscription (e.g : 5euro ). In the end, for the music, it will be a good solution but it will not necessarily a good one for movie. But it's to the movie maker to find a solution about that. They need to understand that DVD and all is now outdated !

And the most funny about that is that the European deputy are against this law !

It's nice and all to be able to state such all-encompassing moral claims that nobody can disagree with; but we are discussing a specific law in a specific country that do specific things. The arguments proposed here in favor of the law essentially go on to the two general statements: "it's the law," and "stealing is wrong." I'm sorry but I first I will have to ask: what is the law? How does it work? Why is it legitimate? Why should I follow it? Who writes it? Why? And then I have to also ask: what does it mean exactly when one says stealing is wrong in this case? What is stealing here? Who is the victim? Who is the perpetrator? If it is wrong, how far does a punishment can go before it becomes more wrong to punish? I don't care if these questions seem like rationalizing to you, because to me they're the fine line between just laws and unjust ones, working ones and failures, and whether I -- if similar laws are implemented in my country -- will care to follow them or not.

How specific do you need it to be? It's illegal downloading that's being targeted here. I would think that the Bill defines what constitutes "illegal downloading" in the French context (it would be nice if someone translates the clauses of the Bill) but, in general, we all know it refers to downloading material that's licenced to distributing companies operating in a given country or region.

Even if we don't go by that definition, it still doesn't change the fact the someone owns the copyright to said media content, so if you're downloading and using material without the copyright owner's consent, it's technically stealing.

Sure, the French Bill is a bad law for being almost impossible to enforce, as well as possibly infringing privacy and civil liberties, but it's not wrong in principle to punish someone for stealing.

Also, bear in mind that we're not talking about matters of life and death here, such as Jean Valjean stealing bread to keep himself alive. We're talking about media content, consumed for entertainment. It's harder to see where the grey area is, in this context. If said media content is on sale, in whatever form, in your country, but you choose to wilfully download it "for free" from the Internet, isn't that stealing?

Of course, there is the problem of media companies shooting themselves in the foot, by claiming "piracy" when the products that are allegedly being stolen aren't even available for sale. But that's another matter. In principle, I still don't see why it's wrong for copyright owners and licenced distributors to protect their property as far as possible.

By the by, I'm thoroughly offended that there have yet to be any barricades in Paris over this. Whatever happened to you French?

Brainwashing by the mainstream medias and lobbys (hint: the same lobby who pressured for the law to be voted works for the one mainstream TV channel who fired one of his employees for his difference of opinon). Let's be honest, in my opinion, since the coming of TV and new medias, frenchmen's revolution-happy balls fell off.

I would think that the Bill defines what constitutes "illegal downloading" in the French context (it would be nice if someone translates the clauses of the Bill) but, in general, we all know it refers to downloading material that's licenced to distributing companies operating in a given country or region.

I'm sure it refers to a breach of copyright, fullstop. The fine distinction between "licensed" and "not licensed" material is vague, has no legal grounds, and would immediately be challenged by the media industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Even if we don't go by that definition, it still doesn't change the fact the someone owns the copyright to said media content, so if you're downloading and using material without the copyright owner's consent, it's technically stealing.

No, stealing is techically stealing. A copyright violation is technically a copyright violation. Be assured Sony's PR and legal departments don't use legal terms that "liberally" when somebody has claims against them. So why should we.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Sure, the French Bill is a bad law for being almost impossible to enforce, as well as possibly infringing privacy and civil liberties,

It's an infringement of privacy and civil liberties and certainly not impossible to enforce. Modern technology allows a level of surveillance of the citizen by the state people wouldn't have dreamed of 20, 30 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Also, bear in mind that we're not talking about matters of life and death here, such as Jean Valjean stealing bread to keep himself alive. We're talking about media content, consumed for entertainment.

It's the other way around: the well-being of an industry producing mere entertainment can by no means be a reason to limit civil rights. If you want to make profit, fine. Find a way that fits to society. But don't attempt to make the society fit to your business model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In principle, I still don't see why it's wrong for copyright owners and licenced distributors to protect their property as far as possible.

"As far as possible" is too dangerous a concept to leave its implementation to the homo economicus.

Not sure if it's been said, but I'm pretty sure the goal isn't to catch everyone, but to get enough to make the rest afraid and cut back their consumption. It's almost sure to work at first, these things tend to. Just look at how people are worried about baytsp over the queen's blade thing.

Also no need to be so self-righteous about downloading illegal content, do your thing if you must, but just because it's been possible and without consequence doesn't mean it's a god given right...